Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page suing Justice Department, FBI for disclosing text messages

[humbolt]

I guess you haven't bothered to read the lawsuit. The release to CONGRESS isn't the subject of the lawsuit. What is the subject of it is the late night leak session hosted by Flores with invited members of the media, who were given secret access so long as they didn't source the leaked texts to the DOJ. Notice what she says she's suing over. It's specific - leaks to the press.

See for yourself if you want: Former FBI Lawyer Lisa Page Sues Justice Department and FBI - Lawfare

View attachment 67269833



What she alleges and believes is the DoJ should have followed the LAW about the release of her texts.

And as to what we "think" is true, when Rosenstein admits to the leak session under oath in Congress, I think it's fair to consider that leak session a fact. Who's disputing that it happened if the DoJ admits to it happening? Even your quote from Flores admits to it happening.

I guess the timeline in this event is of no interest to you. I've attempted to show what has been claimed by the DOJ. I'm not privy to internal DOJ documents or the orders of Horowitz, so I have no foundation from which to make any judgement. Of course, neither are you privy to any of that, so I don't quite see how you have any ground to argue for Page.

 

[Fenton]

What does? That she did nothing wrong and you and others continue to smear her based on nothing but lies? I agree!

She smeared herself by being a participant in a politically motivated investigation into the opposition campaign.

 

[JasperL]

I guess the timeline in this event is of no interest to you. I've attempted to show what has been claimed by the DOJ. I'm not privy to internal DOJ documents or the orders of Horowitz, so I have no foundation from which to make any judgement. Of course, neither are you privy to any of that, so I don't quite see how you have any ground to argue for Page.

The DoJ through Rosenstein's under oath testimony to Congress admits to leaking the texts TO THE MEDIA on the evening of Dec. 12th as alleged in the lawsuit. That action is what the lawsuit is all about. The timeline of when something else happened that isn't part of the lawsuit isn't relevant that I can see.

You keep referring to the release of the texts to CONGRESS, but Lisa Page isn't suing the DOJ over that. Why do you insist we kick to the wrong goal posts? Read the lawsuit and you'll see what action she alleges is illegal. It's NOT what Horowitz authorized, which involved CONGRESS.

 

[Fenton]

The DoJ through Rosenstein's under oath testimony to Congress admits to leaking the texts TO THE MEDIA on the evening of Dec. 12th as alleged in the lawsuit. That action is what the lawsuit is all about. The timeline of when something else happened that isn't part of the lawsuit isn't relevant that I can see.

You keep referring to the release of the texts to CONGRESS, but Lisa Page isn't suing the DOJ over that. Why do you insist we kick to the wrong goal posts? Read the lawsuit and you'll see what action she alleges is illegal. It's NOT what Horowitz authorized, which involved CONGRESS.

That's rich. Chris Steele leaked details of the dossier to the media while the FBI was using him to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

The FBI didn't inform FISC of his media contacts until a year after the last FISA application was filed

Page knew damned well details of the investigation she was part of and lies from Steele's dossier were being leaked to the media, and now she's pissed off her privacy has been violated ?

She texted Sztrok about it. No one feels sorry for her

 

[JasperL]

That's rich. Chris Steele....

MOM HE DID IT TOO!!!!!

If you want to talk about something else, start a damn thread.

 

[humbolt]

The DoJ through Rosenstein's under oath testimony to Congress admits to leaking the texts TO THE MEDIA on the evening of Dec. 12th as alleged in the lawsuit. That action is what the lawsuit is all about. The timeline of when something else happened that isn't part of the lawsuit isn't relevant that I can see.

You keep referring to the release of the texts to CONGRESS, but Lisa Page isn't suing the DOJ over that. Why do you insist we kick to the wrong goal posts? Read the lawsuit and you'll see what action she alleges is illegal. It's NOT what Horowitz authorized, which involved CONGRESS.

I don't necessarily put anymore stock in what Rosenstein claims than I do in the claims alleged in Pages suit. The people at DOJ most directly involved allege an entirely different series of events. I have no way of determining the truth in this, but apparently you do, and you unsurprisingly accept Page's version. Considering her past, I don't find Page to be a paragon of virtue and honesty, so I'm not about to accept her at her word. I'll wait for the truth the court may expose.

 

[JasperL]

I don't necessarily put anymore stock in what Rosenstein claims than I do in the claims alleged in Pages suit. The people at DOJ most directly involved allege an entirely different series of events. I have no way of determining the truth in this, but apparently you do, and you unsurprisingly accept Page's version.

That's fine I guess. I don't see it as anything but obvious to take the word, under oath, to Congress, of the #2 in DoJ the day after the event. If that's not enough for you, okee dokee. No point debating when we can't agree on the obvious facts as demonstrated.

I will mention NO ONE you've quoted actually disputes the late night leak party to the media took place as alleged and confirmed by Rosenstein. You keep moving the goal posts to Congress....

 

[humbolt]

That's fine I guess. I don't see it as anything but obvious to take the word, under oath, to Congress, of the #2 in DoJ the day after the event. If that's not enough for you, okee dokee. No point debating when we can't agree on the obvious facts as demonstrated.

I will mention NO ONE you've quoted actually disputes the late night leak party to the media took place as alleged and confirmed by Rosenstein. You keep moving the goal posts to Congress....

I've moved no goal posts. You continue to argue allegations as if they're fact. They aren't. Since you've missed it, let me point out for the third or fourth time now that if the text contents were already in the public sphere before this "party", the entire suit is likely fruitless unless you can find the leaker(s).

 

[JasperL]

I've moved no goal posts. You continue to argue allegations as if they're fact. They aren't. Since you've missed it, let me point out for the third or fourth time now that if the text contents were already in the public sphere before this "party", the entire suit is likely fruitless unless you can find the leaker(s).

We have a different definition of "fact." Stuff that's been confirmed on the record under oath to Congress by the #2 in DOJ is a 'fact' in my view, especially when nothing you've presented disputes that 'fact.'

And if Congress leaks it, that makes it OK for DoJ to have a little off the record, not for attribution, after hours invite only media leak party with employee's personal texts on display? Didn't see that exception in the law, but I could have missed it I guess...

 

[humbolt]

We have a different definition of "fact." Stuff that's been confirmed on the record under oath to Congress by the #2 in DOJ is a 'fact' in my view, especially when nothing you've presented disputes that 'fact.'

Perhaps if you read more about the events themselves rather than citing Page's suit, you'd have a better understanding of what constitutes fact, and what doesn't. Horowitz agreed to the release, but his office didn't review it. DOJ ethics lawyers reviewed the release, and found no privacy issues. That is the DOJ explanation.

My suggestion, as it has been previously, is to let the court review depositions and documents, and make a determination. I agree with the OP that it takes a lot of chutzpah for Page to claim some kind of hardship in this after all the crap she's put others through. I don't feel her pain.

 

[OpportunityCost]

We have a different definition of "fact." Stuff that's been confirmed on the record under oath to Congress by the #2 in DOJ is a 'fact' in my view, especially when nothing you've presented disputes that 'fact.'

And if Congress leaks it, that makes it OK for DoJ to have a little off the record, not for attribution, after hours invite only media leak party with employee's personal texts on display? Didn't see that exception in the law, but I could have missed it I guess...

I'm not sure how you can have an expectation of privacy on a work phone, especially when discussing sensitive, political topics that can hurt the reputation of the agency, but okay...

 

[JasperL]

Perhaps if you read more about the events themselves rather than citing Page's suit, you'd have a better understanding of what constitutes fact, and what doesn't. Horowitz agreed to the release, but his office didn't review it. DOJ ethics lawyers reviewed the release, and found no privacy issues. That is the DOJ explanation.

You're talking about the release to Congress - that's the moving the goal posts I was referring to, and you denied, then did it again. The lawsuit isn't about that but the late night media leak session, not for attribution, which happened, and is a fact.

My suggestion, as it has been previously, is to let the court review depositions and documents, and make a determination. I agree with the OP that it takes a lot of chutzpah for Page to claim some kind of hardship in this after all the crap she's put others through. I don't feel her pain.

What kind of hardship did she put who through, exactly? Horowitz said she made no decisions, was present but didn't direct the investigation, because she had no authority to. There's an article of faith she did something wrong to deserve the endless mocking and smearing, but no one can say what, except have an affair that the DOJ helpfully made public with that late night leak session, which was nice of them. Otherwise, she criticized Dear Leader in private, which is shameful and all but seems not really worth the public shaming.

 

[JasperL]

I'm not sure how you can have an expectation of privacy on a work phone, especially when discussing sensitive, political topics that can hurt the reputation of the agency, but okay...

The expectation is your employer doesn't throw you under the shame bus by inviting the media over for a private late night secret party to view your dirty laundry and report on it, then for the President of the United States to refrain from smearing you 100 times or so in public in the most mocking way possible, when no one has even accused her of wrongdoing, and two investigations have cleared her. If that's what's "expected" then we have a different idea of what the norms should be I guess.

And it's kind of hilarious/fascinating/dumbfounding that you're blaming her for the leadership of the DOJ releasing the "sensitive" texts that she intended to remain private, but that because DOJ decided to publicly throw her under the bus, that act hurt the reputation of the agency that released her texts!

 

[SLC]

Page is a lawyer. She should know text made on government phone are the governments documents and she has no reasonable expectation of privacy or ownership. I doubt she will prevail in her suit.

 

[DiAnna]

She has no presumption of privacy when using government furnished communication devices...even the government furnished phones, computers, and email accounts provided to government contractors makes it clear that use of these government owned communications systems constitutes voluntary consent to monitoring.

That message pops up on all our computers, and we are reminded that it applies to all media communication platforms and devices......this will go no where.

This. ^^^

Sure, she and Peter Stzok were foolish and unprofessional putting those personal, and clearly biased, texts on a government phone. However, the DOJ leaked them deliberately, and Trump et al have been ridiculing and demeaning her (oddly enough, not the FBI guy) mercilessly for three years. Then last month when Trump went to a rally and mocked her with a simulation sex act, complete with ogasmic sounds, that was so out of bounds I was personally horrified.

She's lost her job, is a national joke so good luck finding another job, and has been ridiculed and slandered for years by the entire Trump family, and Trump's entire fan cult. Yep, she should sue somebody, just not sure who; but whoever she sues, I hope she wins.

 

[OpportunityCost]

The expectation is your employer doesn't throw you under the shame bus by inviting the media over for a private late night secret party to view your dirty laundry and report on it, then for the President of the United States to refrain from smearing you 100 times or so in public in the most mocking way possible, when no one has even accused her of wrongdoing, and two investigations have cleared her. If that's what's "expected" then we have a different idea of what the norms should be I guess.

And it's kind of hilarious/fascinating/dumbfounding that you're blaming her for the leadership of the DOJ releasing the "sensitive" texts that she intended to remain private, but that because DOJ decided to publicly throw her under the bus, that act hurt the reputation of the agency that released her texts!

If you intend them to remain private you don't discuss sensitive cases and how biased you are towards investigatory targets of said cases, and you don't do it on a work phone.

She is a long way from innocent here. Not to mention the affair by itself is cause for dismissal, its too easy to blackmail someone doing that. Rosenstein leaked for exactly this reason, so it was clear what was done by Page and to provide political cover.

 

[OpportunityCost]

This. ^^^

Sure, she and Peter Stzok were foolish and unprofessional putting those personal, and clearly biased, texts on a government phone. However, the DOJ leaked them deliberately, and Trump et al have been ridiculing and demeaning her (oddly enough, not the FBI guy) mercilessly for three years. Then last month when Trump went to a rally and mocked her with a simulation sex act, complete with ogasmic sounds, that was so out of bounds I was personally horrified.

She's lost her job, is a national joke so good luck finding another job, and has been ridiculed and slandered for years by the entire Trump family, and Trump's entire fan cult. Yep, she should sue somebody, just not sure who; but whoever she sues, I hope she wins.

As an aside, the lack of judgment and arrogance it shows to do this sort of thing on phones you know are logged and possibly monitored...I dunno how she could think she wouldn't get caught showing such blatant bias.

 

[PLizzy]

This. ^^^

Sure, she and Peter Stzok were foolish and unprofessional putting those personal, and clearly biased, texts on a government phone. However, the DOJ leaked them deliberately, and Trump et al have been ridiculing and demeaning her (oddly enough, not the FBI guy) mercilessly for three years. Then last month when Trump went to a rally and mocked her with a simulation sex act, complete with ogasmic sounds, that was so out of bounds I was personally horrified.

She's lost her job, is a national joke so good luck finding another job, and has been ridiculed and slandered for years by the entire Trump family, and Trump's entire fan cult. Yep, she should sue somebody, just not sure who; but whoever she sues, I hope she wins.

Just imagine what the Ken Starr team said via email back in the 1990's. :roll:

They all had an open animus towards Clinton, yet were appointed to be apart of the independent counsel. Not one Republican said a ****ing thing about that.

 

[trouble13]

Perhaps so. Count me among those who would love to know the facts here. If I were Lisa Page, the last thing I'd want is even more publicity. I'd be trying to save my marriage and protect my kids. How humiliating do you think this is to her cuckolded husband and Strzok's wife?

I would love to know if their spouses are planning on voting for Trump in November

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[justabubba]

I would love to know if their spouses are planning on voting for Trump in November

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

if so, i could better understand page and her lover stepping out

 

[Atomic Kid]

I would love to know if their spouses are planning on voting for Trump in November

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Why would they then vote for someone who betrayed his own spouse? Not only in the same manner. But even more publicly so.

 

[nota bene]

if so, i could better understand page and her lover stepping out

What does how one votes have anything to do with the decision to cheat on one's spouse?

 

[justabubba]

What does how one votes have anything to do with the decision to cheat on one's spouse?

if my spouse voted for tRump, i would have nothing to do with her. i am not fond of stupid women

 

[humbolt]

You're talking about the release to Congress - that's the moving the goal posts I was referring to, and you denied, then did it again. The lawsuit isn't about that but the late night media leak session, not for attribution, which happened, and is a fact.



What kind of hardship did she put who through, exactly? Horowitz said she made no decisions, was present but didn't direct the investigation, because she had no authority to. There's an article of faith she did something wrong to deserve the endless mocking and smearing, but no one can say what, except have an affair that the DOJ helpfully made public with that late night leak session, which was nice of them. Otherwise, she criticized Dear Leader in private, which is shameful and all but seems not really worth the public shaming.

I gathered much earlier in our exchange that you would rather not discuss the release to congress. It is central to the DOJ explanation of events. I specifically mentioned that explanation in my first post in this thread, so your claim that I've moved the goal post is false.

I can't determine that the DOJ explanation is any more correct than you can determine Page's explanation is. I can freely admit that while you are loathe to admit the possibility that Page's assertions could be incorrect. That's because a determination of exactly when text content became public knowledge is central. You don't know when that happened any more than I do.

Any hardship Page claims are the result of her own actions. Further, using government phones to discuss their relationship should give pause to any objective person when viewing their judgement in other areas. You don't view any of that as upsetting - only that they were caught.

 

[nota bene]

if my spouse voted for tRump, i would have nothing to do with her. i am not fond of stupid women

Wow, what a happy marriage you must have. I can only imagine what other personal failures and character flaws you judge your spouse on.

James Carville and Mary Matalin seem to have found a way to accept each other's contrarian political opinions. Maybe there's something to learn there?